On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 09:57:06PM +0530, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > On 6/9/2011 9:10 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 04:30:08PM +0100, Frank Hofmann wrote: >>> Btw, when testing this I found that generic cpu_suspend seems to be just >>> fine for OMAP3; the OMAP platforms though do not at this time use the >>> generic cpu_suspend/resume for sleep, is it planned to change that ? >> >> That's because OMAP was doing changes to their sleep code while I was >> consolidating the sleep code, and although I asked several times that >> the OMAP folk should participate in this effort, but evidentally I was >> unsuccessful in achieving anything in that direction. > > Agreed but the situation at that point was the code was not at > all in convertible position. Looking at your below comment, > it's still not :) Well, I had a look before posting this reply, and ran away from it. I've gone back to it several times since, and got a similar reaction. I seem to remember that it looked _more_ convertable when I looked at it when doing the generic suspend/resume support - I could see a nice simple way to pull out the saving and just leave the PLL resume stuff in SRAM. I'm now convinced that if I try to convert it use the generic support, it will end up being a horrible broken mess. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
